Bad idea. It is the companies which need to learn how to sell without lying. Asking people not to buy is an old and failed argument. Car brakes failed? Hey we didn't say in writing that they actually work, why don't you just buy another car? Oh wait, you are handicapped now. Sorry about that.

Can't breathe the air close to our factory? Why don't you just move? There is no right to breathe in the Constitution (but we think there is a right for us to lie).

And no one is getting rich here other than cheats on the corporate boards.

Nothing may come out of this lawsuit, but if companies don't lie again, that is an achievement by itself.

It is a myth that industry suffers because of this. Actually, other ethical businesses which are now suppressed will have a chance to compete.

Click to expand...

Unlike with car brakes and bad air, nobody gets injured nor dies because the racquet they play with is not exactly the same as their favorite pro's. That's the big difference. You have to prove injury to the plaintiff.

^^ Uhhh, no, you don't have to prove "injury" in any literal sense. One can prove "loss" as in one spending money to get one thing and actually getting something else, which is the point of the suit here.

(note: such is the lawsuit recently joined by the US Justice Dept., initiated by the Postal Service, against Lance Armstrong for submitting false data to them about drug use. The False Claims Act facilitates such lawsuits. The Postal Service was obviously not injured in any literal sense but asserts it thought it was buying one thing (a drug free athlete) when in fact it got something else. Same deal with buying a racquet used by Roger Federer and getting something else. Such suits are not uncommon.)

Unlike with car brakes and bad air, nobody gets injured nor dies because the racquet they play with is not exactly the same as their favorite pro's. That's the big difference. You have to prove injury to the plaintiff.

Click to expand...

You don't need to prove physical injury; financial or economic injury will suffice. She bought a racquet for $XXX because she thought it was Federer's and would have paid $YYY if she had known it was not. The difference between $XXX and $YYY is her injury from the transaction.

Her issue won't be proving injury. Instead, it will be her choice of the class action vehicle and overcoming predominance concerns related to class reliance on Wilson's misrepresentation. Even then, though, there is a trend toward presuming class-wide reliance in these types of cases.

I suspect this will get certified (if it even gets that far) and Wilson will settle.

You don't need to prove physical injury; financial or economic injury will suffice. She bought a racquet for $XXX because she thought it was Federer's and would have paid $YYY if she had known it was not. The difference between $XXX and $YYY is her injury from the transaction.

Her issue won't be proving injury. Instead, it will be her choice of the class action vehicle and overcoming predominance concerns related to class reliance on Wilson's misrepresentation. Even then, though, there is a trend toward presuming class-wide reliance in these types of cases.

I suspect this will get certified (if it even gets that far) and Wilson will settle.

Click to expand...

So then if the plaintiff paid $199 for her racquet and she claims she would have paid nothing if she had known Federer doesn't actually use the same racquet (the least amount she could possibly claim), then the most she should hope to gain if she wins the lawsuit is $199? Hardly worth the legal expense, right? Seems like bodily injury lawsuits pay much better.

I really don't think this would go anywhere, and even if it did, I don't see hefty checks being written to members of the class, no matter how many Wilson sticks they purchased.

The end result would be something like a $20 coupon and the court ordering Wilson to stop marketing frames as "the frame Federer uses", for example. I'd bet Wilson would promptly turn around and just tweak the marketing - "based on the frame Roger Federer uses" or "part of the family of frames which includes the racquet Roger Federer uses" or they would still use pictures of Fed, but fine print (tiny fine print on the cardboard inlay in the unstrung frame, or on the inside throat) would say that this is not Federer's actual frame.

A "win" for the class and any interested observers would be Wilson having to change their marketing to be more honest (if still somewhat indirect), not a financial windfall for the class members.

(note: such is the lawsuit recently joined by the US Justice Dept., initiated by the Postal Service, against Lance Armstrong for submitting false data to them about drug use. The False Claims Act facilitates such lawsuits. The Postal Service was obviously not injured in any literal sense but asserts it thought it was buying one thing (a drug free athlete) when in fact it got something else. Same deal with buying a racquet used by Roger Federer and getting something else. Such suits are not uncommon.)

Click to expand...

That's because it was stipulated in the sponsorship contract between the US Postal Service and Lance Armstrong's team that they would be drug free, so it was clearly a breach of contract by Armstrong. I don't think when this plaintiff bought her racquet that she signed a contract with Wilson stipulating that the racquet Wilson sold to her is exactly the same as the one Federer uses in tour matches.

^^ Are you truly this naive about class action lawsuits??!! Plaintiffs often receive literally a few dollars each, but the suits exist because the attorneys will get a third or so of the settlement, at the judge's discretion, and that can be in the millions, hundreds of millions, maybe more. The individual plaintiffs don't have any legal expenses and only have to sign a statement to join the lawsuit, so your point about the whole thing not being worth the legal expense is merely ignorant.

^^ Are you truly this naive about class action lawsuits??!! Plaintiffs often receive literally a few dollars each, but the suits exist because the attorneys will get a third or so of the settlement, at the judge's discretion, and that can be in the millions, hundreds of millions, maybe more. The individual plaintiffs don't have any legal expenses and only have to sign a statement to join the lawsuit, so your point about the whole thing not being worth the legal expense is merely ignorant.

Click to expand...

I know about class actions lawsuits. I've been part of many dozens of them. My point is from the plaintiff's perspective, not the lawyers' perspective. It's hardly worth it for the plaintiff (the actual person who brought the lawsuit initially) to go through all this for $10, is it? There are always "expenses" involved with any lawsuit in time, travel, money, and stress. What if she loses? How do you know the lawyers won't charge her a dime? Have you physically seen the agreement between them?

So then if the plaintiff paid $199 for her racquet and she claims she would have paid nothing if she had known Federer doesn't actually use the same racquet (the least amount she could possibly claim), then the most she should hope to gain if she wins the lawsuit is $199? Hardly worth the legal expense, right? Seems like bodily injury lawsuits pay much better.

Click to expand...

As I stated earlier in this thread, class actions often aren't about redressing individual injuries, but instead about enjoining a fraudulent market practice. In this case, the money to individual plaintiffs is less important than stopping Wilson from defrauding the market with false marketing.

Also, the named plaintiffs often recover more than other unnamed plaintiffs because they've taken on the risk of a class action. There are built in mechanisms to compensate them for the time and expense of the suit.

(Assuming they recover from Wilson, the attorneys will also be paid for their work.)

OK, I didn't wade though all 16 pages of this, so sorry if I am repeating someone else's points. I do have some experience in this area though.

The idea for class action suits was that people with small claims do not have enough at stake to justify filing a lawsuit, but it is unfair for the defendants to escape on that basis. so let similarly situated people combine their inidividual claims. The problem is the individual claims may be weak, or the differences between individuals more relevant than the common factors, but the aggregate damage award could be catostrophic for the defendant, so they are forced to settle dubious claims. Legalized blackmail, if you will.

Typically, class members end up with token compensation, and their lawyers make millions, sometimes more. I suspect that will be the end result here.

I disagree with some here that this claim is dubious however. If Fed or other pros are using PJ frames, and if the manufacturers are selling different frames as the ones the pros use, then it seems pretty open and shut to me. Wilson wouldn't be advertising it as his frame unless they thought that would induce people to buy it. Clearly, that is a major factor in people buying it.

I disagree that the outcome will have little effect on manufacturers. Like golf club manufacturers, their whole business model is built on yearly upgrade cycles. If the people whose very livelihood depends on the racquet prefer to use an older, "inferior" product, that has to have a very detrimental effect on their marketing. What will have to happen is that the pros will have to suck it up and play with the new, "improved" models, like it or not.

Why do you assume we're 'sticking up for' Wilson? Maybe some of us are sick of the Nanny State, litigious, hate the rich class warfare that is currently being played out? Don't like how the major racket lines market their products, don't buy them.

As I said before, demo'ing rackets is widely available; thus consumers have ample opportunity to make an informed purchase, based on their own research; the marketing spiels of the companies are worthless.

Click to expand...

That statement makes no sense in light of...well...reality.

The marketing spiels are worth millions of dollars which is what companies such as Wilson pay pros such as Federer ro use their name and image. If you disagree with that then quit your current job, become an industry consultant, and tell Wilson they're wasting their money. Blog about via TW and let us know how it works out for your personal finances.

As for the "nanny state", that concern is complete nonsense. Do you have a test lab in your basement to ensure the safety and effectiveness of your food and medicines? Do you test the purity of the fuel you put in your car? Do you personally inspect every aircraft you fly on?

If not, then thank the "nanny state" for keeping your butt safe and healthy and your car in working order.

You see, we've tried it the other way. It was called the late 19th century in the US and it sucked. People were injured and killed by food, medicine, and products sold under false pretenses. For example, cigarette companies sold their products by telling people they were HEALTHY for them while knowing just how dangerous they were.

Save that sort of nonsense for idiotic talk radio.

Or move to that Libertarian Utopia, Somalia. Remember, even Ayan Rand died while on government support and Paul Ryan went to college on social security (ie welfare) funds.

Wilson is lying about their products and should be held accountable.

Better yet, Roger Federer should show some class and demand that they stop lying by using his name. But he won't. He's just another hukster.

This is slightly off topic but does anyone know if Nole actually uses a Graphene Speed frame (I thought I saw somewhere that he didn't)? If not, I could see that commercial with the new graphene speed as his "secret weapon" leading some less informed players down the wrong path, too. I hope the end result of this Wilson lawsuit has a positive effect on the way racquets are marketed going forward.

This is slightly off topic but does anyone know if Nole actually uses a Graphene Speed frame (I thought I saw somewhere that he didn't)? If not, I could see that commercial with the new graphene speed as his "secret weapon" leading some less informed players down the wrong path, too. I hope the end result of this Wilson lawsuit has a positive effect on the way racquets are marketed going forward.

Click to expand...

No, he doesn't. I believe Djokovic uses a custom racquet based on the old Head LM Radical MP mold, but I could be wrong. vsbabolat would know if he chimes in here.

This is slightly off topic but does anyone know if Nole actually uses a Graphene Speed frame (I thought I saw somewhere that he didn't)? If not, I could see that commercial with the new graphene speed as his "secret weapon" leading some less informed players down the wrong path, too. I hope the end result of this Wilson lawsuit has a positive effect on the way racquets are marketed going forward.

What will have to happen is that the pros will have to suck it up and play with the new, "improved" models, like it or not.

Click to expand...

And/or the pro sticks with the model he's used for more than a decade and Wilson tries to market new cosmetics every three years instead of "new" racquets. Of course, that pro won't be around for many more cycles. Best case for players is that Wilson is forced by this suit to release the actual Federer stick. And then the smart thing for them to do would be to release the same thing in a lighter model as well, without his signature. I think they'd still sell a lot of racquets, honestly this time.

And/or the pro sticks with the model he's used for more than a decade and Wilson tries to market new cosmetics every three years instead of "new" racquets. Of course, that pro won't be around for many more cycles. Best case for players is that Wilson is forced by this suit to release the actual Federer stick. And then the smart thing for them to do would be to release the same thing in a lighter model as well, without his signature. I think they'd still sell a lot of racquets, honestly this time.

Click to expand...

All I'd ask from Wilson in the form of a "TW Best Seller" would be a Wilson player's frame with the feel of the Pro Staff Original 85 in a bigger headsize that could accommodate 95-98 users and would be easily customizable with lead--the lighter head heavy/polarized Babolat replica's are a bit too tricky to modify without an RDC machine. (I added a leather grip to the BLX 95 team and the SW jumped up enough to feel like a log--WOWZA!)

IMO, the best that Wilson could do in a situation like this, if it's actually happening, is to claim their newest racket is exactly--EXACTLY what Fed uses and us Fed fans would suck it up once we pick up these genuine sticks and play our backyard tennis with it. Until then, let's support the other brands! :cry:

All I'd ask from Wilson in the form of a "TW Best Seller" would be a Wilson player's frame with the feel of the Pro Staff Original 85 in a bigger headsize that could accommodate 95-98 users and would be easily customizable with lead--the lighter head heavy/polarized Babolat replica's are a bit too tricky to modify without an RDC machine. (I added a leather grip to the BLX 95 team and the SW jumped up enough to feel like a log--WOWZA!)

Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that weight added to the handle/butt of a racquet has a minimal effect on its swingweight...

I guess the idea that athletes and racquet companies shouldn't lie to people to sell products is lost on you.

Click to expand...

No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.

You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

Click to expand...

I don't know why this comparison issue comes up over and over again. Your home was burgled and someone walked away with your TV is a non-issue among the world's problems. Don't you still report it to the police?

No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.

You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

Click to expand...

Bravo!
There are quite a few industries that have the equivalent of paint jobs for their pro models. This is the only place I've seen people take issue because for the most part, the consumers who care, know they couldn't handle the pro model.

But I do slightly agree with sureshs. While this is a non issue for me, the Monsanto analogy is a bit of a stretch.

No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.

You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

I don't know why this comparison issue comes up over and over again. Your home was burgled and someone walked away with your TV is a non-issue among the world's problems. Don't you still report it to the police?

Click to expand...

You really just like reading your own words, don't you? It doesn't matter how stupid your point is, you just need to leave your mark. Disgusting.

No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive.

You see, racquet companies aren't keeping these mythical pro-stock sticks away from the general consumer because they're scared that the racquets are somehow entirely too amazing, and might result in lowered sales. They're doing so because putting out a product line specialized for the needs and whimsy of a highly trained athlete would do no good to both them and the consumers alike. It's incredible how hurt people on this forum become when they feel that something special, something extraordinary is being kept from them by BIG RACQUET, when in reality these things would do them absolutely no good. If your favorite player happens to endorse a certain racquet company, and you like their product, then good for you. But don't sit there for one second and pretend that you're somehow the victim of a long con perpetrated by the sleazy racquet companies and their no-good-athlete cronies. Grow up. If you're still purchasing a racquet based on the signature on the side as opposed to whether or not it works for you, then they deserve your money.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

Click to expand...

I think there are two issues here and you only refer to one of them, i.e., not being able to acquire the exact racquet certain pros are using.

The second issue are the obvious misrepresentations certain companies make when talking about the racquets pro players are using.

Regarding the latter, when you have Wilson, Head, and even TW - represent to the public, "Djokovic's racquet of choice..." OR "Players using this racquet: (picture of Djokovic) - how is that not gross misrepresentation?

I think there are two issues here and you only refer to one of them, i.e., not being able to acquire the exact racquet certain pros are using.

The second issue are the obvious misrepresentations certain companies make when talking about the racquets pro players are using.

Regarding the latter, when you have Wilson, Head, and even TW - represent to the public, "Djokovic's racquet of choice..." OR "Players using this racquet: (picture of Djokovic) - how is that not gross misrepresentation?

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing about point #1. It's point #2 that's in the class action

No, it's not lost on me. It just that, in this case, it's a non-factor. If a company is lying to you, really, truly lying to you about the provenance and quality of a product, then yes, you have the right to be upset. Throwing what amounts to a hissy fit when you're denied access to pro-stock equipment which is tuned to the personal specifications of, quite literally, one player and one player only is childish and naive. ...

... rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

Click to expand...

Corporations like Monsanto need folks like you to breed a sense of consumer complacency.

Nobody is whining about NOT having access to Federer's racquet of choice. They're complaining that they're being told that they DO have access to that specific racquet and then they find out it isn't the same one. They purchased the frame based on false information provided by the manufacturer and the retailer.

In some ways Wilson and the retailers are no different from those shady outfits selling counterfeit frames. If a fellow sells a frame not made by Wilson with Wilson graphics he's called a counterfeiter. If Wilson sells a frame that it claims is used by Federer but it's not they're no different from the counterfeiter. Both are selling products under false pretenses. Wilson and TW are effectively selling counterfeit Federer frames since the ones being sold as being used by Federer are not used by him.

Wilson, Head, TW, etc. are really, truly lying about the racquets they sell.

Call TW and ask if the graphene frame they're selling is the same one used by Djoker. They now refuse to say it directly.

Instead the TW staffer will say that HEAD tells them that it's really the same frame used by Djoker. (I know because I called them out of curiosity to see how they're handling this). In other words, Tennis Warehouse wants us to believe that they so disconnected from how pro tennis works that they too are naïve enough to believe what Head is saying. TW would have us believe that they know nothing of pro PJs. Just imagine Chris Edwards doing his best Sergeant Shultz impersonation when asked about pro PJs: "I knnoooow NUUUUTHINK!"

The most interesting aspect of this situation is that the finger pointing has already started. Tennis Warehouse and other retailers don't want liability in this case and clearly believe that the plaintiff has a real chance of success. If dragged into the case you can already see their intended line of defense: "We were being lied to by the manufacturers too! PJs? What are PJs?" :shock:

In some ways Wilson and the retailers are no different from those shady outfits selling counterfeit frames. If a fellow sells a frame not made by Wilson with Wilson graphics he's called a counterfeiter. If Wilson sells a frame that it claims is used by Federer but it's not they're no different from the counterfeiter. Both are selling products under false pretenses. Wilson and TW are effectively selling counterfeit Federer frames since the ones being sold as being used by Federer are not used by him.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. When concerns are raised about software piracy in China, you hear only one point of view. Say a large software company was involved in an anti-trust lawsuit for bundling software and stifling competition. It follows that any money they made over all those years is criminal. So what is wrong if somebody rips their software and sells it for a couple of bucks? Piracy is the way the exploited people can strike back against the criminal actions of large companies. It may not be the correct way to go about it, but it is the best way to teach the company a lesson. (I am taking an extreme view of course for the sake of argument).

Interesting. So when is the class-action lawsuit against the polyester string manufacturers coming? I think they should be sued first as the harmful effects of their products are so much more obvious, IMO.

Interesting. So when is the class-action lawsuit against the polyester string manufacturers coming? I think they should be sued first as the harmful effects of their products are so much more obvious, IMO.

Click to expand...

They will be in trouble soon. RSI mag had reported that there is an industry-wide study commencing on the effects of poly on young arms, and in that article, a string executive asked people to string lower with poly. I think that will be the defense - we asked you to string 10% lower.

If you're really, truly concerned about companies trying to pull the wool over your eyes, you'd be busy protesting the fact that large corporations like Monsanto have sunk millions of dollars into torpedoing legislation that would allow consumers to know when they're purchasing genetically modified foods, rather than whinging about the fact that you're so cruelly being kept from having Roger Federer's racquets of choice at your disposal.

Click to expand...

don't worry we complain about monstanto too, don't see how they are mutual exclusive (red herring, price of tea in china, etc...)... fact is, racquet companies lie to us when selling sticks that they say the pros use...

The dichotomy for me, and I apologize that I didn't read all 18 pages so this might be a re-peat post, is this.

The person is "old" enough to file a law suit but not "mature" enough to understand that all companies have marketing license when paying an endorser.

Golf is a prime example. Make up companies? Weight loss? Camera? Bikes? I'm certain Kelly Slater's surfboard is the same spec as all other KS models.....Etc.....

I'm not disagreeing that these practices can sway some purchasing decisions, but a question to the person filing might be: what other items do you buy because of a specific endorser? And if you found out that there were "tweaks" to those items, would you sue, as well?

What the racquet companies do is simply indefensible. It's blatant lying. Sure, Peyton Manning tells us he likes this little Buick Verano, but he doesn't say this is the car he actually uses every day. Telling us this is THE racquet Roger Federer wins championships with is another matter. There is at least something to be gained and absolutely nothing to be lost in preventing racquet companies from continuing this nefarious practice, and in preventing them from having retailers spread the false information for them.

What a novel idea that corporations should not be allowed to break the law.

Click to expand...

Their just following the example of city hall, but you can't sue the gov, the biggest thieves on the planet are the lawmakers, a tennis racket won't kill you but government does it all the time through omission or comission.

The dichotomy for me, and I apologize that I didn't read all 18 pages so this might be a re-peat post, is this.

The person is "old" enough to file a law suit but not "mature" enough to understand that all companies have marketing license when paying an endorser.

Golf is a prime example. Make up companies? Weight loss? Camera? Bikes? I'm certain Kelly Slater's surfboard is the same spec as all other KS models.....Etc.....

I'm not disagreeing that these practices can sway some purchasing decisions, but a question to the person filing might be: what other items do you buy because of a specific endorser? And if you found out that there were "tweaks" to those items, would you sue, as well?

Click to expand...

That's not an accurate description of the situation.

Wilson isn't claiming that Federer endorses their product. They're claiming that he uses it. Head goes even further with Djoker claiming that he uses the specific frame and derives specific benefits from it.

In both cases Wilson and Head are lying. If you read the relevant section of California law things look bleak for Wilson.

Wilson isn't claiming that Federer endorses their product. They're claiming that he uses it. Head goes even further with Djoker claiming that he uses the specific frame and derives specific benefits from it.

In both cases Wilson and Head are lying. If you read the relevant section of California law things look bleak for Wilson.

Click to expand...

I agree that it is more than an "endorsement" issue. However, and I'm not certain of all the legal nuances but I'm not certain it is "bleak" for Wilson.

Is the injured party saying the only reason she bought a 6.1 is because Roger uses it? And that because he doesn't, she spent too much money and was then "injured"?

A quick survey of TW's Wilson selections - shows 33 current model sticks. 10 models are priced at $199, 20 are priced less and 3 are more. My point is RF stick or not, there isn't a big difference in dollar consideration versus their other models or competitors(too big to review quickly).

Is Nike next because RF's clothes and shoes are not identical to retail?

I agree that it is more than an "endorsement" issue. However, and I'm not certain of all the legal nuances but I'm not certain it is "bleak" for Wilson.

Is the injured party saying the only reason she bought a 6.1 is because Roger uses it? And that because he doesn't, she spent too much money and was then "injured"?

A quick survey of TW's Wilson selections - shows 33 current model sticks. 10 models are priced at $199, 20 are priced less and 3 are more. My point is RF stick or not, there isn't a big difference in dollar consideration versus their other models or competitors(too big to review quickly).

Is Nike next because RF's clothes and shoes are not identical to retail?

Click to expand...

So, if TW started selling frames with Wilson graphics that were not actually made by Wilson but instead made by a counterfeiter in China you'd be ok with buying them as long as they were comparably priced with frames sold by Head, Prince, etc.?

After all, according to your logic, you've suffered no damages in buying a counterfeit frame, right?

Let's take it a step further and say that the counterfeit frame doesn't match the specs of the real Wilson frame.

Wilson is selling Federer-branded frames that don't match Federer's specs. A counterfeiter is selling Wilson-branded frames that don't match Wilson's specs. No difference. Or are you appalled at the thought of being sold a product that doesn't match reality?

I agree that it is more than an "endorsement" issue. However, and I'm not certain of all the legal nuances but I'm not certain it is "bleak" for Wilson.

Is the injured party saying the only reason she bought a 6.1 is because Roger uses it? And that because he doesn't, she spent too much money and was then "injured"?

A quick survey of TW's Wilson selections - shows 33 current model sticks. 10 models are priced at $199, 20 are priced less and 3 are more. My point is RF stick or not, there isn't a big difference in dollar consideration versus their other models or competitors(too big to review quickly).

Is Nike next because RF's clothes and shoes are not identical to retail?

Click to expand...

The "injury" is the entire $199, plus cost of litigation, expenses, hurt ego and sleepless nights . If Wilson told the truth, she probably wouldn't even buy a racquet. She wasn't buying it to play with it, she bought it because she thought it was the same as Fed's.

Actually, if she went to TW and made a thread bragging she got Fed's racquet, and all TW jumped on her case saying "lol Fed's stick? no0b!" She could probably get some for emotional distress too.

So, if TW started selling frames with Wilson graphics that were not actually made by Wilson but instead made by a counterfeiter in China you'd be ok with buying them as long as they were comparably priced with frames sold by Head, Prince, etc.?

After all, according to your logic, you've suffered no damages in buying a counterfeit frame, right?

Let's take it a step further and say that the counterfeit frame doesn't match the specs of the real Wilson frame.

Wilson is selling Federer-branded frames that don't match Federer's specs. A counterfeiter is selling Wilson-branded frames that don't match Wilson's specs. No difference. Or are you appalled at the thought of being sold a product that doesn't match reality?

Click to expand...

Timothy,

Seriously? No difference? Wilson makes a product that Federer uses. Sadly, it isn't the exact same model they claim it to be; but it IS made by Wilson. And, if another company was making Wilson items and saying they ARE Wilson - you don't see any difference?

IE - I'm wearing an Ebel watch because Ernie Els endorses them(not really but follow me here). It is one thing to learn I'm not buying his exact watch and something all together different to find out Casio made it and put Ebel's label on it.....

Listen - at the end, I'm not pleased with what Wilson has, apparently, done. I'm just suggesting that some sort of buyer beware type lesson applies.

Sari M Andelson is a 3.5 rated USTA player who never should be trying to use Roger's, or anything close to it, racquets.....